Kyle et al v. Garrett

Filing 13

MEMORANDUM & ORDER, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs request for class certification. Plaintiffs Colton Clingan, Larry Fowler, Michael Jones, Kendrell Goodwin, Andre Collier, Arnellus Jackson, JaDavione Danzy, and Keenan Cooley be DISMI SSED from this action without prejudice. Plaintiff Goodwins motion to proceed in forma pauperis 10 is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff Kyle has clearly indicated his desire to initiate this civil action given he submitted a personally si gned Complaint and submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Docs. 2 , 11 ]. Plaintiff Kyle shall have thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Order to pay the full filing fee or to submit the necessary documents. Signed by District Judge Curtis L. Collier on 8/22/23. (c/m Lowell H Kyle, Sr WALKER COUNTY JAIL 105 SOUTH DUKE STREET LAFAYETTE, GA 30728 with account form and Clingan, Fowler, Jones, Goodwin, Collier, Jackson, Danzy, and Cooley with 1983 form)(ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
LOWELL H. KYLE, SR.,
COLTON DRAKE CLINGAN,
LARRY LELAND FOWLER,
MICHAEL JONES,
KENDRELL GOODWIN,
ANDRE COLLIER,
ARNELLUS JACKSON,
JADAVIONE DANZY, and
KEENEN COOLEY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
HAMILTON COUNTY SHERIFF
AUSTIN GARRETT,
Defendant.1

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:23-CV-171-CLC-SKL

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Plaintiff Lowell H. Kyle, Sr., filed a class action “Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights[,]
42 U.S.C. Section 1983” on behalf of himself and eight other inmates housed in the Silverdale
Detention Center, which is run by Hamilton County Sheriff Austin Garrett [Doc. 2]. On July 20,
2023, the Clerk issued a Notice providing Plaintiffs with twenty days to pay the filing fee or submit
the appropriate documents to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 1]. That deadline has passed, and
only Plaintiffs Goodwin and Kyle have submitted motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
[See Docs. 10, 11]. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny Plaintiffs class action
status, disallow permissive joinder of Plaintiffs, allow Plaintiff Kyle an opportunity to cure the

1

Plaintiffs do not name a defendant in the caption of their Complaint, but they do name
Hamilton County Sheriff Austin Garrett as the person ultimately responsible for the wrongdoings
alleged in the Complaint [See Doc. 2 at 7]. Thus, the Clerk is DIRECTED to add Hamilton
County Sheriff Austin Garrett as Defendant in this action.

Case 1:23-cv-00171-CLC-SKL Document 13 Filed 08/22/23 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 42

deficiencies in his in forma pauperis application, and dismiss the remaining Plaintiffs without
prejudice.
I.

CLASS ACTION STATUS
Plaintiffs purport to file their Complaint as a class action [Doc. 2 at 8]. The Court construes

this as a request for class certification. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1). For a case to proceed as a
class action, several requirements must be met, including that “representative parties will fairly
and adequately protect the interests” of any class that may be certified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).
However, Plaintiffs are prisoners proceeding pro se, and the Sixth Circuit has long held that pro
se inmates are “not able adequately to represent the proposed class.” Heard v. Caruso, 351 F.
App’x 1, 12 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975)
(“Ability to protect the interests of the class depends in part on the quality of counsel, and we
consider the competence of a layman representing himself to be clearly too limited to allow him
to risk the rights of others.”)). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request for class
certification.
II.

JOINDER DISALLOWED
The Court next considers whether Plaintiffs may proceed jointly. Rule 20(a)(1) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows the permissive joinder of plaintiffs in a single action if
“(A) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising
out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any
question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1).
The joinder of parties is “strongly encouraged” for purposes of judicial economy and fairness
where it is appropriate. United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966). There
are, however, significant practical problems with allowing multiple-plaintiff prisoner litigation.

2
Case 1:23-cv-00171-CLC-SKL Document 13 Filed 08/22/23 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 43

Proctor v. Applegate, 661 F. Supp. 2d 743, 780 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 20, 2009). Such problems
include the “need for each plaintiff to sign every pleading,” the fact that prisoner litigants are
“notably transitory,” the “need for resolution of individualized questions of fact and law
surrounding the requirement for exhaustion of administrative remedies under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1997e(a),” and the fact that multiple-plaintiff litigation “often results in pleadings being filed on
behalf of plaintiffs without their consent.” Id. (citations omitted). These unique factors in prisoner
cases “make joint litigation exceptionally difficult.” Id.
In fact, some of these precise challenges have manifested already in this case. For instance,
only Plaintiff Kyle signed the Complaint [Doc. 2 at 12]. Therefore, the Court cannot be sure that
all the Plaintiffs consent to being a party in this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (requiring every
pleading to be signed by a party personally if the party is unrepresented). And Plaintiffs Kyle and
Goodwin are no longer housed in the Silverdale Detention Center [Doc. 9 at 1; Doc. 10 at 1], and
therefore, their interests have diverged from the remaining Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Court finds
the practical problems of multiple-plaintiff litigation counsel against the permissive joinder of
Plaintiffs in this action.
Although the Court may sever Plaintiffs from this case and allow them to each proceed
separately, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 21, the Court has concerns about doing so sua sponte. First, only
Plaintiffs Kyle and Goodwin filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis in response to the Clerk’s
notice. Second, as previously noted, only Plaintiff Kyle signed the Complaint, and the Complaint
appears written in his hand only [Doc. 2 at 12]. Because no other Plaintiff signed the Complaint
or contributed to its contents, the Court declines to find that any Plaintiff other than Plaintiff Kyle
initiated a civil action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint
with the court”). Therefore, because of the uncertainty as to which Plaintiffs desire to pursue this

3
Case 1:23-cv-00171-CLC-SKL Document 13 Filed 08/22/23 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 44

litigation and the need for each Plaintiff to personally sign his own pleadings, the Court ORDERS
that Plaintiffs Colton Clingan, Larry Fowler, Michael Jones, Kendrell Goodwin, Andre Collier,
Arnellus Jackson, JaDavione Danzy, and Keenan Cooley be DISMISSED from this action without
prejudice. Plaintiff Goodwin’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 10] is DISMISSED
without prejudice.
If any of these dismissed Plaintiffs desire to proceed in a separate § 1983 action, he must
file (1) a § 1983 complaint, signed personally, containing a short and plain statement of his claims,
and (2) either pay the filing fee or file a proper application to proceed in forma pauperis.2 The
Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send Plaintiffs Clingan, Fowler, Jones, Goodwin, Collier, Jackson,
Danzy, and Cooley a § 1983 form and the proper documents to seek leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. However, each Plaintiff dismissed by this Order should return these documents to
the Court only if he wishes to initiate an individual § 1983 action.
III.

PLAINTIFF KYLE
Plaintiff Kyle has clearly indicated his desire to initiate this civil action given he submitted

a personally signed Complaint and submitted a motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Docs. 2, 11].
However, under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, a prisoner who files a complaint in a
district court must tender the full filing fee or he must file (1) an application to proceed in forma
pauperis without prepayment of fees and (2) a certified copy of his inmate trust account for the
previous six-month period (or institutional equivalent). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).

2

Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, a prisoner who files a complaint in a
district court must tender the full filing fee or he must file (1) an application to proceed in forma
pauperis without prepayment of fees and (2) a certified copy of his inmate trust account for the
previous six-month period (or institutional equivalent). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (emphasis added).
4
Case 1:23-cv-00171-CLC-SKL Document 13 Filed 08/22/23 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 45

Plaintiff Kyle has not paid the $402.00 filing fee, nor has he submitted the proper
documents to proceed in forma pauperis. Specifically, Plaintiff Kyle has not filed a certified copy
of his inmate trust account for the previous six-month period or its institutional equivalent.
Therefore, the Court cannot currently determine whether Plaintiff Kyle is entitled to pauper status,
which would permit him to pay the filing fee through installments. See § 1915(b)(1) (“[I]f a
prisoner brings a civil action or files an appeal in forma pauperis, the prisoner shall be required to
pay the full amount of a filing fee.”).
Therefore, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to mail Plaintiff Kyle an inmate account form.
The Court ORDERS Plaintiff Kyle to present this form to the custodian of inmate accounts, who
is DIRECTED to make a copy of Plaintiff Kyle’s inmate trust account statement, to complete and
sign the certificate, and to provide him with the certified copy of his inmate trust account statement
for the six-month period preceding Plaintiff Kyle’s Complaint.
Plaintiff Kyle shall have thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this Order to pay the
full filing fee or to submit the necessary documents. The Court NOTIFIES Plaintiff Kyle that if
he fails to fully timely comply with this Order, the Court shall presume that he is not a pauper,
shall assess the full amount of fees, and shall order the case dismissed for want of prosecution.
Further, the Court NOTIFIES Plaintiff Kyle that the Court WILL NOT consider any
amendments and/or supplements to the Complaint or any other kind of motion for relief until after
the Court has screened the Complaint pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, see, e.g., 28
§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A, which the Court will do as soon as practicable. Accordingly, the
Court will automatically deny any requests to amend or supplement the Complaint and/or motions
filed before the Court has completed this screening.

5
Case 1:23-cv-00171-CLC-SKL Document 13 Filed 08/22/23 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 46

Finally, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff Kyle to inform the Court and Defendant immediately
in writing of any address changes. Pursuant to Local Rule 83.13, it is the duty of a pro se party to
promptly notify the Clerk and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his address, to
monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. E.D. Tenn. L.R.
83.13. Failure to provide a correct address to this Court within fourteen (14) days of any change
in address may result in the dismissal of this action.
SO ORDERED.
ENTER:
/s/
CURTIS L. COLLIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
Case 1:23-cv-00171-CLC-SKL Document 13 Filed 08/22/23 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 47